Friday, October 8. 2010

In the recent post, the request received to disable the blog comments states "Please help us preserve the respect that our Archpastor has earned in the many years he has served us, working hard to establish and nurture Orthodoxy in Canada.” This has not been my personal experience at all. On the contrary - as with many of the recent Bishops in the OCA, position and power has been the guidepost.

Remember - in the SIC report, this is the man who, when presented with evidence of serious wrongdoing, chose to make an issue about where he sat at a banquet table. This gives you a glimpse into the character of the Canadian leader. No, I do not respect him.

These latest allegations just make me sad. I pray they are not true, so that no children were harmed.

Mark- Yeah, we can see just how open your policy is regarding posting comments on controversal subjects just as long as you agree with them, right? What happened to the ==== controversy and his allegations? if it is the policy of OCANews.org to post controversal comments, why have you not posted on this? How about this comment that I am writing now? Will you dare post it in its entirety .... you know the story that occurred with ---- even if it is not true, you are not sticking to your previous words. ......hippocrite loser.

(Editor's note: LOL. So I am being criticized for not allowing comments on a story I know, and you admit yourself, is not true? Ah, actually, that has been announced policy from day one of this site. Go back and look.

Why would you possible want to do this?

So while you continue to attack someone who has been investigated, cleared, and the accuser shown to be disreputable, leave me out of it. And yes, I am a loser, and like Hippocrates, seeking to doctor ills. Or did you mean hypocrite? )

As most are aware, our Archdiocese is being put through great trials. As the Administrator of the Archdiocese of Canada I would like to address you today with the following information.

On October 1, 2010 during the meeting of the Archdiocesan Council, Archbishop Seraphim announced that he had previously asked fur, and had been granted, a Leave of Absence by the Lesser Synod of the OCA.

On Sunday October 3, 2010 in the evening, the following announcement was posted on the official web-site of the OCA in New York:

SYOSSET, NY (OCA)-- The Lesser Synod of Bithops of the Orthodox Church in America, meeting at the OCA Chancery in Oyster Bay Cove, NY, September 21-24, 2010, heard an official report that police in Canada have received a complaint alleging misconduct committeed by His Eminence, Archbishop Seraphim of Ottawa and Canada some 30 years ago. An investigation is now in progress.

The central administration of the OCA has stated the following:

“I (Metropolitan Jonah) have blessed the Church’s Office for Review of Sexual Misconduct Allegations to work in conjunction with the Canadian police authorities and to comply with the Orthodox Church in Americas policies and procedures in order to obtain the necessary information needed to bring about a proper resolution.”

I understand and share the pain that all the circumstances are causing the faithful of our Archdiocese, and, of course, to many others.

I humbly ask for your prayers and support in leading you through these trying times. I am requesting that regular prayers of intercession will be offered in each parish for Archbishop Seraphim, all the people involved, and all of us in this Archdiocese.

With love in Christ,
+ lrénée

Bishop of Québec, Administrator of the Archdiocese of Canada

#3
Released on Annunication Parish e-list October 8
on
2010-10-09 06:10

Your critical comments on the census regarding the Romanians are based on a serious misreading of the document. The OCA's Romanian diocese ("Romanian Orthodox Episcopate of America," not "Romanian Orthodox Archdiocese") was not included separately (just like the rest of its ethnic, overlapping dioceses), while the Romanian Archdiocese belonging to the Patriarchate of Romania is what is listed and has the 121% growth in number of parishes.

Krindatch's taxonomy here is totally consistent. He only lists fully separate jurisdictions. Where did you get the idea that the Romanians listed are the OCA Romanians? All the signs explicitly point the other way.

The OCA's Romanian Orthodox Episcopate has over 100 parishes and missions in the US and Canada (this large number is part of what freaks out many in the OCA at the idea of their departure). The numbers listed in the census are clearly for the patriarchal Romanians (31 parishes). Notice also that no monasteries are listed in the census for the Romanians -- that's because there aren't any for the patriarchal Romanians, though the OCA Romanians have three.

Do the due diligence before making bizarre criticisms.

(Editor's note: I stand corrected. I did misread it, although now I am confused. Why are the Albanians, Ukrainians, Carpatho- Russians, Etc., all under the EP listed individually, but the Romanians, Albanians, Bulgarians, under the OCA not? The latter are no less independent or dependent than the former. Is it because the former are listed individually as SCOBA members, and the latter are not? Because SCOBA funds the research? Just asking.

As for the Romanians leaving the OCA, that would sad, and in the view of many, a backward step, but no one in the OCA is "freaking out". Why would they? Freedom is an integral part of American culture, in which the OCA is trying to witness the Orthodox faith. No one in the OCA has placed any roadblocks if they, they - not us - choose to leave in an ordered manner. Nor do I imagine any will. Part of the OCA's Tomos is that they force no one, nor make any claims on anyone, to be the Church in America. If the Romanian Episcopate choose to be in the "diaspora" again, its their choice. )

Many knew of the allegations against Seraphim at the AAC in Pittsburgh in 2008, including the Synod and Seraphim himself.

A priest by the name of Fr. Christopher Wojcik makes a reference to the allegations from the floor that even made it into the minutes of the AAC.

http://www.oca.org/PDF/15thAAC/15AAC.minutes.pdf

See his comment on pg. 21-22 of the pdf file (p. 8-9 of Plenary Session 2).

I have recently spoken to him, and he confirms that the allegations against Seraphim were exactly what he was referring to. He also said numerous people were talking about it in the hallway outside the Plenary Sessions.

Why did it take two years (or 25 years) for the Church itself to act!?!

"Why are the Albanians, Ukrainians, Carpatho- Russians, Etc., all under the EP listed individually, but the Romanians, Albanians, Bulgarians, under the OCA not?"

Probably because the Albanians, Carpatho-Rusyns and Ukrainians under the Ecumenical Patriarchate here are organized and incorporated as distinct bodies apart from the Ecumenical Patriarchate's archdioceses in the United States and Canada, while the Albanians, Bulgarians and Romanians in the OCA are not -- they are integral, if extra-territorial -- dioceses of the OCA.

Even ecclesiastically, the Albanian, Bulgarian and Romanian bishops of the OCA have seats on and participate in the OCA's synod of bishops under one primate. The Albanian, Carpatho-Rusyn and Ukrainian bishops under the Ecumenical Patriarchate here do not sit on or participate in the synod of the Ecumenical Patriarchate's Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America chaired by Archbishop Demetrios. Their dioceses are de facto independent, if tied to the Ecumenical Patriarchate directly overseas.

I don't necessarily agree with that arrangement or think it's canonically correct or healthy, but that seems to be why those bodies were counted apart from others.

The Ukrainians, Carpatho-Russians and Albanians in the U.S. are indeed under the E.P., but they are their own jurisdictions here in the U.S. They are not under the GOA but directly under the EP. As such, though they are dependent on a patriarchate based in another country, they are locally discrete. The OCA's ethnic dioceses, however, are all part of one local jurisdiction, and their bishops sit on the same one synod (which is part of what makes their overlap so starkly uncanonical).

Thank you for continuing with this site. Thank you for caving into the requests of the self-appointed and self-annointed censors.

Suppressing news does not remove the facts nor does it obiviate what crimes may have been committed. It only, for a while, limits the amplitude of the news.

The purported egregious behaviour of the Archbishop has now made all of the major Canadian newspaper, some of the major American ones, the BBC, and it has even reached two of the Hong Kong dailies. That makes it quite a scandal. Not all of the reports in the newspapers have been exactly full of praise.

Frankly, the Archbishop should either resign or be deposed or packed off to a monastery ipso facto. Whether he actually did what he is alleged to have done or whether he did not do it, the scandal has now become so noised about, the reputation of the Canadian Archdiocese has been sullied, for better or worse, the stench of scandal has spread worldwide and the Archbishop's name, whether guilty or not, will always be associated with this debacle.

(Editor's note: And that is unfortunate. Every man deserves a fair trial to determine whether he is guilty, or not guilty. And his reputation need not be sullied if found not guilty; consider the case of Archbishop Pilarczyk who turned a disaster into a moment of grace for all involved. There are multiple questions here, and the Archbishop's guilt is only one. It is fair to ask that since the Metropolitan said the OCA's policy was being followed, he say when and how; and if not, why bother to have policies? Everyone has a lot of explaining to do how something like this could be allowed to fester for 25, or even 2 years. )

Mark,
I didnt say that the story wasnt true. I was simply saying that regardless if it is true or not, you are not allowing our comments to be posted on this "controversal" topic as you mentioned in your story. It is baloney. You and I both know that the ........story is controversal and yet you have not allowed a single comment other than to delete their names from the post. why? as for the seraphim story, you dont know what is true yet and still allow posted comments....totally hipocritical. you can make fun of the spelling all you want, you are still a damn ..........loser.

(Editor's note: Rail all you want, but my policy is consistent. I don't allow postings that I personally know to be untrue. The issue is not controversy, but truth. The story you wish to flog, has been proven to be personally to be untrue. There is not need to continue to refer to it other than to hurt people's reputation. On the contrary, I do not know personally whether the Seraphim story is true or untrue, but I do know allegations have been made, and I know the allegations. It is controversial and therefore people may comment, as his guilt or innocence has yet to be determined. If he is found not guilty I will not allow comments on the story beyond the verdict, as that serves no purpose other than to hurt his reputation. Is this really hard for you to get, or are you just mad at me?)

+ Nicolai should have been lost on one of the Aleutian Islands long ago. + Seraphim has always been a man of high integrity. I would like to know more about these accusers; why they are coming forward now.....?

I can't believe how horrible people can be in their words on these comments. People who are so rude and crude should not call themselves Orthodox Christians! Christ Himself was accused of many things. The Lord knows and we need to trust more in Him with all of this. I wish that people would think before they post. Would you talk this way face to face with people? Why hide behind the internet? And who are these random 2 boys that came to Canada? So strange! If they are coming forward now, then they should REALLY come forward. Anyone who knows Archbishop SERAPHIM knows that the accusations are absurd! I'm with Diane that unless it can be proved "Without a Shadow of a Doubt"....then I will stand by him too. Ultimately I am with Christ and I stand by Him and put only my trust in Him. I want the truth to shine forth. Obviously I don't believe that any abuse of any kind is acceptable, but false accusations are also a form of abuse and great care and pastoral love one to another needs to be taken a lot more in this situation and discussion. And go ahead and curse all over this if you must…remember then who you are following when you speak to others with absolute hatred and not a single ounce of LOVE. I have known Archbishop SERAPHIM since I was a toddler. I have never heard one bad thing about him until now. I have a brother and a sister and know many others that grew up in the church too with him around and never before this have ANY of us heard these kinds of accusations against our Bishop. I have struggled, because I am a nurse and I care greatly for people….especially children and I have one too. I would want the truth of any kind to come out….but really come on people! Show some love and respect. Seriously who speaks to a bishop saying “Hey Bishop Irenee!” That is rude too…he cares about victims and it sounds like you have never met him before….which is strange.

(Editor's note: The men who have made the allegations are not "random"; but cried out 25 years ago and were not heard. Is that their fault at 10 years of age, or ours? These cases are diffcult, but it behooves us as Christians to hear the allegations seriously, weigh them, which will include hearing from the police as well, and then coming to judgement. Attacking the accusers, defending the Bishop, or vice versa, before an investigation is complete is unwise, no matter how emotional the situation may be. )

I simply do not know where to begin with your long list of fallacies and errors of logic.

Firstly, whether X has known Y his or her entire life does not automatically obviate anything. One may know X or Y his or her entire life and still actually never have touched upon the darker realms of the X's pysche.

Secondly, concerning the all-inclusive remark that "it behooves us as Christians", please, you have innate right to speak for yourself as a Christian concerning this Archbishop. I do not believe that Rome has accorded anyone of this forum the privilege of speaking for "all Christians"(ex citta e ex orbis) and thus the tantum pluralium should be avoided.

Thirdly, as another poster wrote so accurately someonewhere, the fox has been in the henhouse so long that one can only wonder.

Fourthly, I personally would err on the side of the young victims. They have not initiated a lawsuit; they have not bombarded the Archbishop with litigation and pleas for financial redress. Rather, they have been questioned by the police and have provided their statements of facts, which the Archbishop has yet to do. Rather, he has walled himself up in a way that the British Prime Disraeli might have written "basking in the splendor of his glorious isolation". He has repented of nothing.

Fifthly, the scandal has now reached epidemic proportions. It is noised about in all of the various Orthodox jurisdictions, in the world press, in the world mass media....

It's all very sad, and I feel most sad for the young victims, whatever happened. You must not think of them as adults trying to stir up trouble. They must be thought of as 10 yo boys. Come on, everyone must know it can take decades for victims to come forward, especially when they once disclosed and were not believed!
As for all the character witnesses: every pedophile/criminal has someone who will go on record defending their character, saying they just aren't capable of such things! (And I'm not saying anyone should be judged based on allegations, I'm just giving my opinion of all the support given.)
JMO

If there is evidence of abuse, why is it not being put forward in public discussion? Were the 10 year old boys' parents 25 + years ago aware of the accusations? Did they help to make the accusations on behalf of their 10 y/o boys? I would not rest as a parent until there was an investigation, etc. on such a thing as abuse. I would not let it rest for 25 years if it were my son. Where is the proof that this was really pursued by the parents with formal complaints and such? Why would parents not believe their children, but SNAP does believe them? Who were the complaints made to 25 years ago? To a bishop, a parishoner, etc? How was it ignored at that time? Is there a formal complain on file with the OCA and If there is formal complaint on file, how is there proof that the OCA ignored the accusations back then? What did they ignore? Who ignored it?

Also, just wondering where this idea that the 2 boys gave their statements to the police came from? I have not heard of that in the news, is there a site or story that I have not heard. If so, can you direct me to it? Thanks.

(Editor's note: Good, valid and helpful questions, but not all are answerable at this time. It is perhaps not appropriate to discuss the actual specifics of the abuse allegations while the police are investigating. Likewise, it is not helpful to discuss who did what, when, and why or why not, until their investigation is ended. If the case goes forward all those questions will be revealed in court; if it doesn't, they are not relevant to the civil authorities. They are indeed relevant, however, to the church authorities because claims have been made that things were ignored, or misstatements made. But it is difficult to investigate an investigation while the latter is still underway, no?)

I particularly agree with your comments here and I would like to add a few of my own. There are various on this board who still reflect a 1950's view of things and a 1950's cause-and-effect relationship towards life. For example, I can almost smell that several here on this board would write that a woman who has been raped was asking to be raped, that a child who was abused was asking to be asked, that a person who committed a heinous crime did so because the victime begged the perpetrator to do so. Some of the comments on this particular thread are just denigrating to the two little boys in question and abject overall.

I work with children. I am a qualified professional educator of little children who suffer emotionally-related learning disorders with numerous publications in Chinese scholarly journals to boot. I have done much work with children from what we now called stressed environments. Melanie, you are absolutely correct -- sometimes and actually quite often the mind of a little one will emotionally enter into the far reaches of the psyche a damaging event, only to have the even surface later in a stream-of-consciousness type way. The emotional damage inflicted upon a little child takes years to play itself out, and in many cases, the conflict is never resolved. The child has been hobbled for life by the self-serving and self-gratifying act of the prepatrator of the act. I absolutely stand professionally with the little children here. 100%. The memories may be seared, they may be blurred, but working with qualified professionals they may resurface and be resconstructed in a manner hopefully not too excrutiatingly painful for the distressed little one. Let the police investigation lead where it will lead. In all of my years in this field, I have only ever, ever had 2 children out of the 800 or so that I have dealt with who were outright lying and even then there was a serious grain of truth in their lies.

XL

Christ said, at least in my Bible, "Suffer not the little children to come onto me, for theirs it the Kingdom of Heaven.".

Recently, you were asked to act like a responsible journalist and close the comments sections on your stories regarding Archbishop SERAPHIM. You refused.

Interestingly, later you yourself wrote:

--------------------------------------------------------------

It is perhaps not appropriate to discuss the actual specifics of the abuse allegations while the police are investigating. Likewise, it is not helpful to discuss who did what, when, and why or why not, until their investigation is ended. If the case goes forward all those questions will be revealed in court; if it doesn't, they are not relevant to the civil authorities. They are indeed relevant, however, to the church authorities because claims have been made that things were ignored, or misstatements made. But it is difficult to investigate an investigation while the latter is still underway, no?

--------------------------------------------------------------

Obviously, you don't heed your own advice. Why is that? Is that reasoning "good enough" for the person you were replying to, but not "good enough" for you?

Shame, Mr Stokoe...

(Editor's note: Whatever are you talking about? That I wrote an article about the fact that there was a police investigation? Or that Seraphim took a leave of absence - and the real reason why? Clearly you seem to believe ignorance is bliss, but then, twere folly to be wise. And our Lord commands us to be wise. I have encouraged people not to comment on the facts of the case if they do not know them; and very few do. I have encouraged people not to speculate one way or the other, not knowing the facts.I have neither speculated, nor commented on +Seraphim's guilt or innocence; but I will continue to report on the facts of the case. I am sorry if that offends you, but prudence demands we confront the situation - whether it turn out to be true or false - and deal with it, rather than ignore it. )

#20
Let's all make anonymous pot-shots at people we don't like...
on
2010-10-15 12:32

I checked the minutes of the AAC on pg. 8-9 and it makes no reference to the allegations of sexual misconduct against ArchBishop Seraphim. It does make reference to the misappropriation of funds as mentioned by Fr. Zacchaeus and which bishops were aware of it including Bishop Seraphim.

Have the alleged victims ACTUALLY come forward? Have they made formal charges to the police in Canada? Have these victims ever come forward in the past, only to be ignored? If they did, when and what evidence do you have that they came forward? It would seem to me if they came forward in the past to the police in Canada, an investigation would have taken place at once.

Do you deny that *you've been asked to disable the comments sections for the stories regarding Archbishop Seraphim*?

Do you deny *that the quoted words above are yours*?

Are you really unable to see the contradiction?

Having the comments section available is nothing more than inviting speculation, which tends to hinder the actual investigations. That's why reputable (read: "real") news agencies disable comments on inflammatory stories. It's so they don't skew the investigation (and potentially put themselves on the hook for obstruction of justice!).

(editor's note: Oh, now I get your point. Thanks for clarifying it. I disagree that comments are simply to "invite speculation". Oftimes they offer new information, clarification, as well as opportunities for venting, sharing, appealing, crying out for help, offering help, gauging opinion, laughter, outrage, and the like. Just because some seek to speculate, when they don't know the facts, does not invalidate the other purposes of the comments section. So, while there is no intent to obstruct justice, and little possibility, it would seem, your outrage seems misplaced to me. Feel free to disagree. That's what comment sections are for. )

"Anonymous" wrote, "I checked the minutes of the AAC on pg. 8-9 and it makes no reference to the allegations of sexual misconduct against ArchBishop Seraphim."

Were you looking at pp. 21-22 of the pdf file?

http://www.oca.org/PDF/15thAAC/15AAC.minutes.pdf

On that page Father Christopher Wojcik says, "For those of us who are cautious, we'll need to see that dynamic to know it exists. That will be tested -- I think there's a test at the gates -- to hold one another accountable."

Eddie Kayeti, who first posted about the remark, also wrote that he had confirmed with Wojcik that he was referring to the allegations against Archbishop Seraphim Storheim.

"Anonymous" wrote: "Melanie, Have the alleged victims ACTUALLY come forward? Have they made formal charges to the police in Canada? Have these victims ever come forward in the past, only to be ignored? If they did, when and what evidence do you have that they came forward?"

First, let's be clear that there are **two** investigations of Archbishop Seraphim Storheim in progress. The civil authorities in Winnipeg are conducting one investigation, the OCA another.

Most assuredly a victim, or victims, have come forward to the civil authorities. Otherwise, as Mark pointed out earlier, the police would not have started an investigation. You can be assured that there is an investigation not only because the OCA and Mark have said so, but also because the Winnipeg authorities acknowledged it in a press conference.

I am informed and believe that a **witness** came forward to the OCA in 2008. According to my information, the allegations had been reported to the OCA at the time of the events as well, and there was allegedly a response of sorts from the OCA at the time. In corresponding with the church, the OCA confirmed that a witness had come forward, but claimed to have no knowledge of a historical report.

"Most assuredly a victim, or victims, have come forward to the civil authorities. Otherwise, as Mark pointed out earlier, the police would not have started an investigation."

This phrasing suggests the assertion is not based on first-hand knowledge that one or more of the alleged victims -themselves- have come forward, but rather is a deduction from the confirmed fact that there is definitely a police investigation.

But I am not sure this deduction necessarily holds under Canadian law, and would like to hear someone familiar with Canadian law comment.

Canadian law in fact -requires- anyone who even -suspects- any kind of abuse of a minor to report their suspicions, which will start some kind of investigation. As I understand it, under Canadian law, it does not have to be an alleged victim themselves who contacts the police to get an investigation -started-. How far such investigations get without any alleged victims themselves providing direct evidence is another question.

I think this is at least part of what 'Anonymous' above may have been trying to get at. He or she seems to have been attempting to ask Melanie to give a clear reply to this question:

Do you know from -first hand- knowledge and not from deduction whether the actual alleged victims are the ones who set this police investigation in motion; or was it another party who made these allegations to the police?

Anonymous appears to want to make up his or her own mind what he or she thinks about the story so far, and wants to be sure of such facts as we do have. The way Melanie phrased her reply to Anonymous seems to me, as I said above, to suggest Melanie does -not- have first hand knowledge about whether the victims came to police with their allegations, but only that another party did so.

If this deduction of -mine- is in error, please do clarify!

Please note I am only trying to get clarity about this particular detail, and not attempting to engage in debate about the case as a whole. We -do- need to avoid speculation about specifics of this case.

But Canadian law -does- differ from US law in many particulars. Clarity about how such an investigation actually works-- could help to prevent readers being misled into speculation and erroneous conclusions.

Again, I think all concerned would benefit if someone familiar with the Canadian justice system could comment and confirm or correct my reading of the Canadian laws governing such cases.

(Editor's note: I cannot speak for Canadian law, but what you describe seems to be accurate for what I do know. Next, to your question: I have it on excellent authority ( which is as specific as I am going to get) that the alleged victims have personally spoken with the police. And there is now a police investigation. Just so everyone is clear: This is an allegation made by two Canadian men about the actions of a Canadian priest, now a Canadian Archbishop, actions that took place in Canada, some 25 years ago. This is a Maple-Leaf matter, although since we are a continental church, of which the Archdiocese of Canada is a self-supporting part, it does concern the entire OCA in some ways. But it is not something "cooked up" by "enemies", in the USA or elsewhere, despite the family's protestations. Protestations of +Seraphim's "innocence" are inappropriate by those who do not know the circumstances of the allegations. Those who decry his "guilt" before even an investigation is completed are equally inappropriate. Let us, rather, all pray that justice be done, however it unfolds, quickly.)

Matushka Donna Farley wrote, "Canadian law in fact -requires- anyone who even -suspects- any kind of abuse of a minor to report their suspicions, which will start some kind of investigation."

Certainly knowledge that a child is **currently** being abused should be reported and would trigger an investigation.

However, the same does not hold for allegations of historical abuse, i.e., where the victim is no longer a minor. I have personal knowledge of this because I reported the allegations against Archbishop Seraphim Storheim to the Canadian police myself. I was told that the victims would need to come forward to trigger an investigation.